Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#81

Post by mikekchar »

kragen wrote: post #46
totony wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mutt doesn't support retrieving mail very well, but you can use sync programs (getmail, offlineimap, isync, exchange2mbox) to create local mailboxes and make mutt use the local mailbox directory instead. you can send email using external programs (local smtp server and openxchange for exchange). Mutt is not a traditional mail client, it is more of a glue between multiple programs so you can have one interface for all…

If Mutt is not a traditional mail client , then what is? heirloom-mailx? I read my mail with less. That's a nontraditional mail client.

When I first started in the industry my colleagues told me that I should be using the read-mail program. It has a mode that allows you to use regexps to read your mail really fast. I was told that the normal way to run read-mail with the "really fast" mode was:

rm -rf *

Disclaimer: For the Unix impaired, this is an "expert only" utility. I am not responsible for the loss of all the files in your home directory should you attempt to use it.

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#82

Post by microtonal »

pilooch wrote: post #80
gooseyard wrote: post #40

I've used mutt for ages, but a couple of years ago I switched to Karel Zak's mutt-kz branch ( https://github.com/karelzak/mutt-kz ), which integrates notmuch into mutt. The setup is a little fussy (although well documented), but the results are spectacular. Mutt's search was never horrible but with notmuch its nutty fast, and the tagging feature makes dealing with search and mailing lists very convenient.

You can use mairix as a search system outside of mutt. Results are a temporary mailbox.

notmuch can generate temporary maildirs as well with this script:

http://git.notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch/blob_plain/HEAD:/cont...

However, in my experience mutt-kz is much faster. Plus, you get tagging everywhere (if you use it) and threads can be reconstructed across folders (helpful when your own mails are in a 'Sent' folder).

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#83

Post by creshal »

simoncion wrote: post #68
dmix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That plus there aren't many good open source (non-web) options. Thunderbird is pretty bad.

What's wrong with Thunderbird? Note that if you use it as an IMAP client for Gmail, that Gmail's IMAP implementation is -as I understand it- kinda bad, so you're gonna kinda have a bad time.

It's slow, it's bugged (occasionally it just spins up and uses 100% CPU for hours – or until your battery runs out, or you kill it), and most importantly, its keyboard workflow is poor.

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#84

Post by microtonal »

tobik wrote: post #79
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that it hasn't really been designed for keyboard-only use. Some features, such as switching folders for instance, seem to require a mouse, or at least I haven't been able to find a shortcut for doing it. It's also kind of hard to avoid accidentally composing html emails - it cannot be disabled completely. I still use thunderbird myself though, as I haven't been able to find a better alternative for Linux. claw…

For switching folders in Thunderbird: Alt-g-o and select new folder with arrow keys Composing HTML emails need to be disabled for every account. Never had a problem with it.

That sounds like a lot of work if you have a non-trivial number of folders or labels.

In the end, mutt vs. Thunderbird is pretty much like vim vs. gedit. gedit is far easier to use out of the box, but vim allows you to define your own (complex) commands, allowing you to basically make your own editor.

E.g. I like GMail shortcuts, so I added macros like the following to my muttrc[1]:

    macro index,pager gl "?/"
    macro index,pager gi "inbox" "go to the inbox"
    macro index,pager ga "archive" "go to the archive"
For instance, gl immediately gives me a list of vfolders and does the keystrokes to start a search. So, like GMail, I can immediately start typing a name of a folder.

[1] Note: I use mutt-kz

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#85

Post by therealmarv »

Security Experts... let me quote Linus Torvalds: "the security community tends to be very black and white. Either it's security or it's not. And if it is security, they care deeply. And if it is not, they don't care."

So who cares if you write your email in text mode but browse the web with Chrome/Firefox? No offense against Mutt... I can understand that some terminal pros like it but I cannot understand using it for security sake. So what happens if you want to view a html email? What about mail on a mobile phone (I guess security experts do not use them)?

And mutt has other attack surface because it is using the terminal. Look here for a Ubuntu security notice about mutt: http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-2440-1/ Now I smile because gmail is not affected by that!

This is all not practical for 99,9% of normal users out there.

If you care about security do not let the paranoia control you. We need to improve security for the normal users out there. Just my opinion.

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#86

Post by dredmorbius »

mikekchar wrote: post #81
kragen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Mutt is not a traditional mail client , then what is? heirloom-mailx? I read my mail with less. That's a nontraditional mail client.

When I first started in the industry my colleagues told me that I should be using the read-mail program. It has a mode that allows you to use regexps to read your mail really fast. I was told that the normal way to run read-mail with the "really fast" mode was: rm -rf * Disclaimer: For the Unix impaired, this is an "expert only" utility. I am not responsible for the loss of all the files in your home directory should…

Do NOT suggest people try a command which will recursively remove all files ignoring file permissions. Most people will be aware of the hazard. Those who aren't will suffer irreparable harm.

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#87

Post by dredmorbius »

simoncion wrote: post #69
sanatgersappa wrote: post #63

Wish it was more user friendly and ran well on Windows (yes, I'm that guy). A good example of something that is user friendly, fast, secure and runs almost everywhere is the messaging client Telegram. Would be great if there were more programs like it.

> Wish [mutt] was more user friendly and ran well on Windows... I would be shocked if Cygwin's mutt port didn't run just as well on Windows as it did on Linux. Remember that UNIX software that you compile with Cygwin becomes a native Windows executable.

I was going to suggest this. It does.

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#88

Post by eru »

dogma1138 wrote: post #10

Most "Security Experts" are working for consultancy, tech firms, and government agencies so they probably use plenty of other clients. The majority will probably run Outlook since Exchange is the defacto mail-server standard for any organization (that isn't tied to Lotus because 45 years ago the CEO had to sacrifice a goat to appease IBM to spare his 1st born), the rest will probably use Gmail or any other web-based…

Off-topic:

> [...] just as alcohol, drug use and smoking is more common in Doctors than any other diploma based profession out there [...]

What I could find with a quick search pointed in the other direction. Do you have some evidence?

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#89

Post by eru »

raverbashing wrote: post #28
icebraining wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Alpine instead; tried mutt first, but found it abstruse to set up.

Yeah, I'm biased towards (Al)pine, would be interesting to know how does Mutt compares with it

I started with Pine, and used mutt for a bit later. Mutt is ok, if you invest the time in learning it. (If you can handle vim, you can cope with mutt.)

Re: Why Some Security Experts Use Mutt

#90

Post by eru »

leephillips wrote: post #66

I use mutt because after you learn of its power, other mail clients reveal themselves to be toys. I keep all my active correspondence in my inbox (5773 messages at the moment). With a few keystrokes I can instantly create a subset of my inbox optimized for the task at hand. (People who use toys instead of mutt often advocate an "inbox zero" approach, I understand.)

You can do the same two things with gmail.

(There are lots of things mutt does that gmail doesn't, of course.)

Post reply on HN